CDL:(5 Responses), Chem Absts--in paper

Responses to the following posting:

From: "Scheu, Mark" <mark_scheu_at_UMSL.EDU>
> 
> I would like to get some idea of how widespread the cancellation of the
> print version of Chemical Abstracts is, given availability to the electronic
> version through the likes of STN and SciFinder etc.
> 
> Have you cancelled the print? Has resistance from faculty stopped you? What
> factors entered into your decision?
> 
> You can reply to me if you like, and I'll summarize for the list.
> Thanks.
> 
> *******************************************
> J. Mark Scheu       (314) 516-5076     mark_scheu_at_umsl.edu
> Interim Head, Collection Development
> Thomas Jefferson Library        
> Univ. of Missouri-St. Louis

==#1

From: H Robert Malinowsky <hrm_at_uic.edu>
     
At the University of Illinois at Chicago we have not cancelled the print
but we are certainly beginning to consider that option.  Space to house
the print has become a problem and of course the cost of maintaining both
the print and electronic.  We are still hesitant, however, since power
does go off, internet does go down, etc., leaving the researchers with no
options other than paper with a flashlight or candle.  Added to this is
the fact that we are not receiving as much of an increase in our materials
budget as we have before.

H. Robert Malinowsky
Professor and Manager of
Collections Development and Reference
University of Illinois at Chicago Library


==#2

From: "Kris Gerhard" <KGERHARD_at_gwgate.lib.iastate.edu>

Lorrie Pellack, Iowa State University Library's head of Science and Technology
reports,

I can tell you we still have the paper copy of Chemical Abstracts - in spite of
a 
lengthy discussion with chemistry faculty.  But, we have ceased purchasing 
the cumulative indexes which are quite expensive & are a separate cost, not 
part of the CA subscription.

I strongly suspect CA will be cancelled in the next round of journal 
cancellations - especially now that we have gone to 24 hour access of 
SciFinder.  However, the one purpose/use we are still seeing of these volumes 
is professors who are teaching their graduate students how to do library 
research.  They give them an exercise in using the paper version of Chemical
Abstracts - since many of them may not have access to SciFinder when they 
get out into the "real world."

I would also suggest this person search the archives of the chemical 
librarians listserv: CHMINF-L.  Subscribing to the list would give instructions 
on how to access the archives....LISTSERV_at_IUBVM.UCS.INDIANA.EDU


Kristin H. Gerhard
Collections Officer
Iowa State University
Ames, IA  50011

==#3
From: Fred Rowland <frowland_at_temple.edu>
 
Hi Mark,

We are in the process of cancelling Chemical Abstracts at Temple.  There is 
some resistance from some faculty members, but we have too little money and 
no shelving space.  We will see over the next few weeks the kind of 
response we get.  

Fred Rowland
Temple University
Science Librarian

==#4
From: dzrlib_at_library.caltech.edu
 
Mark: Part of the 'deal' for the purchase of SciFinder Scholar was that we
would cancel the print CA at the end of 2001. We had previously purchased
the 14th collective, so we will have a complete set for 1907-2001. We will
be moving the abstracts from 1967-1992 to storage but will keep the
decennial/collective indexes as the chemical substance index in print is
much superior to SciFinder Scholar.

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540

==#5
From:  John Abbott  abbottjp_at_appstate.edu

Like CalTech, the 'deal' for SciFinder Scholar with sub-
structure searching was to drop CA in paper.  The Chemistry faculty
hardly missed a beat in agreeing to the move once they saw the SFS 
one-month trial.  Continuing this type of material in 2 formats
is unrealistic and a waste.  Students have no desire to use the 
paper tools and it is unlikely they will encounter the paper CA in the
real world (and if they do, they were intelligent enough to earn
a BS in Chemistry and can surely figure out how to use the paper). 
Retain the paper years prior to STN or SFS coverage, however.  If faculty
need to teach on the paper tool, then those years should be sufficient.
Same applies to _Biological Abstracts_ in paper vs. online.

fyi, SFS has tiered-pricing.  Ask about BA/BS program
pricing vs. graduate program pricing, if applicable. 

John Abbott
Coordinator, Collection Development
Appalachian State Univ.